Standing Committee D

[Mr. Frank Cook in the Chair]

International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]

Frank Cook: At the request of several male Committee members and to ensure that there are no distractions from the clause-by-clause scrutiny on which we are about to embark, I will allow male Members only to divest themselves of their upper garments.

John Battle: I beg to move,
 That—
 (1) during proceedings of the Standing Committee on the International Criminal Court Bill [Lords], the Committee do meet—
(a) on Tuesday 10th April at five minutes to Ten o'clock and half-past Two o'clock, and
(b) from Tuesday 24th April, on Tuesdays, at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock, and on Thursdays, at five minutes to Ten o'clock and half-past Two o'clock;
 (2) the proceedings on the Bill shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 24, Schedule 2, Clauses 25 to 28, Schedule 3, Clauses 29 to 34, Schedule 4, Clauses 35 to 37, Schedule 5, Clause 38, Schedule 6, Clauses 39 to 42, Schedule 7, Clauses 43 to 50, Schedule 8, Clauses 51 to 54, Schedule 9, Clauses 55 to 83, Schedule 10, Clause 84, Schedule 1, new Clauses, new Schedules;
 (3) if not previously concluded, the proceedings of the Committee on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion at Five o'clock on Thursday 3rd May.
 I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cook, and accept your comments as an invitation to take off my jacket, although other upper garments will remain in place. All Committee members look forward to working under your careful stewardship and the usual impartial, relaxed and humorous style in which you conduct business. I hope that this will be an enjoyable Committee for all members. 
 The Bill is sizeable, legally complex and technical. Its purpose, as was made clear in the excellent Second Reading debate, is to enable Britain to sign up properly to the Rome statute on the International Criminal Court. In moving the programme motion, I should make it plain that there is some urgency about the matter, hence we are programming the Committee to ensure that there is proper consideration and debate of all the clauses, with flexibility to allow the Opposition to table searching amendments, to which we look forward. 
 There is a sense of urgency because other countries are moving ahead. The Swiss Parliament recommended on 13 March that its Government ratify the Rome statute, and the Croatian Parliament passed a law of ratification on 28 March. There is urgency also because we have been heavily engaged in the formative stages of the court and negotiating the details to get it established. We want to be one of the early signatories—among the first 60.

Gerald Howarth: I am not sure that I follow the logic of the Minister's argument. In support of his assertion that the Bill is urgent, he cites the fact that Croatia and Switzerland have signed up. He must understand that there is a huge difference between Croatia and Switzerland and the United Kingdom. They are not players in the international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement efforts in which the United Kingdom is engaged; they are bit-part players at best.

John Battle: I could read out a list of all 29 countries that have ratified already, but I am simply letting the Committee know the latest signatories. We want to be the next signatory, or at least to be in the first 60. There are many other significant players in the 29, but we need 60 to get the court up and running. We want to be involved at the formative stage so that we can help to shape the court's future. We can be proud of the pivotal contribution that the UK has made to the court's creation. The programme motion, which we discussed last night when setting out the timetable, should allow us to achieve our objectives.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister makes the case for getting on with the debate, which I assume is central to his argument about the programme motion. However, we should be clear that the reason that we need to get on is to ensure that this country enjoys the same degree of influence as San Marino, which has a population of 27,000 people.

John Battle: We have greater influence than San Marino; we have certainly had more influence on the court's formation.
 The programme motion enables us to discuss the Bill for longer than Opposition amendments were debated in the other place. There is more time to discuss the amendments. We are being flexible. The real aim is to allow serious scrutiny of the clauses. We want the Bill to be given careful consideration because we need to get it right. We are all agreed on that. We should not need to feel any pressure of time. The purpose of the programme motion is to enable us to get on so that the Bill does not run into the sand and so that we can be one of the first signatories. That is important because we have significant influence in these matters.

Cheryl Gillan: Good morning, Mr. Cook. I echo the Minister's words in welcoming you to the Chair. In our topsy-turvy world, today is a parliamentary Thursday even though it is a Tuesday, so we have an early start this morning. I should like to clarify one point with you: I understand that we have half an hour for the debate on the programming motion; is that half an hour from the start of the debate, or from the start of the Committee?

Frank Cook: There are 25 minutes remaining.

Cheryl Gillan: Fine. Obviously it is timed from the start of the Committee. I just wondered, because you kindly allowed the gentlemen to remove their jackets—

Frank Cook: Order. Perhaps I should clarify: 25 minutes was the maximum time left. It is now 24 minutes, and counting.

Cheryl Gillan: Thank you, Mr. Cook. I just wondered whether pronouncements from the Chair were included in that time.
 It will come as no surprise to the Minister of State and his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to learn that, although the Minister made what he believes is a case for the motion that was put before the Programming Sub-Committee, we object to programming motions per se. Quite frankly, his justification that there is some urgency to this matter is beyond belief: the Bill could have been introduced at a much earlier stage in this Parliament. However, it has been introduced at the 11th hour, which will cause problems, and in the usual fashion—that is, accompanied by a heavy-handed programme motion that will not give the Opposition the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in a civilised manner. 
 The Bill could have been brought to fruition by agreement between the parties. As we have said repeatedly, both in the other place and in debates in the Chamber, there is no difference between us on the principles behind the Bill: we all want the perpetrators of vicious and wicked crimes to be brought to justice. However, there are issues and details on which we need clarification and reassurance. There are also people outwith Parliament who want to be able to set their daily routine against the certainty of the Government's backing and the words that Ministers utter during examination of the Bill. Such people include those who serve in the armed services, on whom we rely so greatly. 
 Programme motions are sometimes used to restrict debate. I do not suggest that today's motion is such a case, because it makes allowance for 10 sittings if all goes well. However, 3 May is an arbitrary date for the finish of the Committee. One can only assume that it fits conveniently with any timetable that the Government have for a general election on 7 June—that is not the best kept secret in the world. The fact that there is a programme motion does not guarantee that there will be 10 sittings or that there will be enough time for debate. I do not say that that will be so, but there is a possibility that it might be. 
 On Second Reading when challenged by me on this point the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), an eminent Member of Parliament who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, admitted that 
 ``Of course there is no guarantee of 10 sittings, but the Government would lay themselves open to criticism if they did not give adequate time for debate.''—[Official Report, 3 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 289.] 
In fact, even though the Government have tabled a programme motion, it is not in their power to guarantee the time allowed, because there are forces outwith the Committee and the Government's control that might impinge on the time for debate. The calling of a general election, for example, is in the hands not of the Government, but of one man—the Prime Minister. He may decide to call an election early and thereby curtail debate on the Bill. A state of emergency or other event could impinge on the Bill's passage. Far be it from me to suggest this, Mr. Cook, but the Chairman of the Committee might unaccountably be detained and not show up. I believe that there is no mechanism in the Standing Orders of the House for reclaiming lost time on the debate and scrutiny of any Bill. 
 Another depressing aspect of the timetable motion is that it has second-guessed any amendments that may be tabled and any discussions that hon. Members may wish to have. The motion was put in train long before amendments were tabled by the Government, those on the Back Benches or, indeed, the Liberal Democrats. I do not believe that they have a representative here.

Tony McNulty: What about Crispin?

Cheryl Gillan: The Whip suggests my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), but I think not—the Whip's eyes probably need testing.

Gerald Howarth: More like his brain.

Cheryl Gillan: Do not tempt me.
 Programme motions are tabled before there has been a chance to see what amendments have been tabled, and long before you, in your wisdom, selected amendments, Mr. Cook. The whole proposition of a programme motion is bankrupt if it infringes on the parliamentary freedoms of scrutiny and debate. 
 The timetable certainly gives me the impression that the Government do not expect to amend the legislation in this House. That shows arrogance, because several amendments had to be tabled by a Minister in another place to remedy imperfections that were discovered during the Bill's passage through that House. The motion does not give much time for the Bill to pass through its remaining stages, or, if an amendment is accepted in Committee, for it to return to the other place in the normal fashion. Perhaps the Minister can explain why this timetable has been chosen and why 3 May has been chosen so arbitrarily. 
 Something else that is novel to me, and perhaps to the rest of the Committee, needs to be explained: how does the programming procedure dovetail with the procedure for the Bill that is just starting its passage in the Scottish Parliament? The Bill was laid before the Scottish Parliament only on 4 April—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—but that Parliament, with its Liberal-Labour coalition, has gone off early and is now in recess.

Edward Garnier: That is where they are.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. and learned Friend suggests that no Liberal Democrat Member is here because they have gone on holiday early, but that is uncharitable to say the least—

Tony McNulty: It is true.

Cheryl Gillan: The Whip says that that is true, and he would know.
 The Scottish Parliament will remain in recess until, I believe, after return the Westminster Parliament returns, although the Scottish Bill must go through a rather elaborate procedure. If I understand it correctly, when the Bill and the necessary accompanying documents have been introduced, several stages follow: stages 1, 2 and 3 procedures, reconsideration of Bills passed, amendments to Bills, and Crown consent. The procedures laid out in the guide to the governance of Scotland show that there may be considerable time between the stages. What is the timetable for the Scottish Bill? I want to know how it will pan out—whether it is subject to a timetable, whether there will be restrictions on its scrutiny in Scotland, and how it will emerge and meld with the Bill's passage through the Westminster Parliament.

Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend tell the Committee what would happen if the Scottish Parliament made changes to the Scottish Bill but, because of the Government's steamrolling the Westminster Bill, no changes were made in this place? What would happen in that case—especially if a general election intervenes, the Conservatives win and we decide to drop the proposal?

Cheryl Gillan: I would not presume to say that the next Conservative Government would drop the Bill. We would try to ensure that the Bill was in an acceptable form before it went through Parliament and we would not stint on debate. What happens if the Bill published on 4 April is amended?

Mike Gapes: In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), will the hon. Lady state categorically, without ambiguity or weasel words, whether the Conservative party is in favour of the ICC? Yes or no? Is it in favour of our being among the first 60 countries to ratify?

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman rises to the bait rather early in our proceedings. He has been in the Chamber on many occasions when I have spoken on the matter, but if he wants to cast aspersions on my standing, he can. He asks me to make a commitment to be undertaken by the next Conservative Government, but we will let the hon. Gentleman know on 8 June. That is not a no—the hon. Gentleman is trying to be clever but he will not trap me in that fashion. I will not rise to the bait. He knows that I approve the principles behind the ICC. I do not hang my hat on being among the first 60 as assiduously as he does, but his hypocrisy in trying to trap me into saying something—

Frank Cook: Order. Such a direct accusation is not permitted in Committee. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the word ``hypocrisy''.

Cheryl Gillan: Of course I withdraw the word ``hypocrisy'', Mr. Cook. I do not want to offend the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) but I wanted to make my point that the Bill could have been introduced much earlier in the Session, as I requested many times on the Floor of the House. The Government have introduced the Bill far too late. The hon. Gentleman is laughing, but I know that he agrees with me.

Louise Ellman: This is an extremely important Bill and we are entitled to know whether the Conservative party, Her Majesty's Opposition, supports it. The hon. Lady must tell us so, clearly and unambiguously.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Lady has not attended as many debates on the matter as I have and I refer her to Hansard. In view of the time we have left, I prefer to speak to the programme motion than to play silly and juvenile cat-and-mouse games about what we do and do not believe. I am trying to make a serious point about dovetailing Scottish and Westminster legislation. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would have been interested in that.
 What happens if amendments are made in Scotland that do not marry up with the Westminster Bill? Is the Scottish scrutiny process undermined by the fact that the passage of the Bill through this place might occur more rapidly than that of the Scottish Bill, even though the two are supposed to dovetail? Because of the programming motion, this Bill—which commits the United Kingdom to the process—could be enacted before the Scottish Bill has passed all its stages. If the Scottish Parliament has the free and fair ability to scrutinise the legislation, it will be able to amend it so that it contradicts or conflicts with the Bill. 
 The question is whether Scotland is merely rubber-stamping what happens in this Parliament. If so, that would undermine the process of devolution. Why has that not been brought forward earlier and why has the timetable motion not been linked to the Scottish process? Would it not have been more sensible for the Scottish process to have taken place in advance of the Westminster process, to make sure that there was no conflict? Will the Minister say how long it will take the Scottish Parliament to examine the 29 clauses and six schedules in the Scottish version of the International Criminal Court Bill. In other words, what co-ordination is there between the Scottish authorities and the Foreign Office on the matter? The Minister's motion seriously affects the timetabling and the way in which we scrutinise the Bill. 
 I am sure that my hon. Friends will have something to say on the matter and I hope that the Minister will have time to answer their points. The restriction of the Committee timetable works against allowing the Minister to give a decent answer. I have taken only the half the time available.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I would like clarification. The programme motion states that new clauses and new schedules will be considered at the end of consideration in Committee. However, new clause 6 appears for consideration under clause 1. Why is new clause 7, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, not considered alongside new clause 6?

Frank Cook: That point of order has already been the subject of debate and we have agreed to discuss it again on Monday 23 April, prior to the next full sitting of the Committee.

Crispin Blunt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. It is important that, once we are a couple of sittings into the Committee, the Programming Sub-Committee on 23 April reschedules the limited time available for issues that the Opposition want to discuss. That would restrict the role of Government members of the Committee, but I am sure that they will make their views known to members of the Programming Sub-Committee. If the programme motion states that new clauses are to be considered at the end of Committee consideration, on what grounds and on what advice did you include new clause 6 for discussion today?

Frank Cook: I am surprised that that point is being raised. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is normal practice for new clauses to be taken towards the end of Committee stage. He sat in on the Programming Sub-Committee last night and heard the exchanges that took place. Since then, those discussions have informally been taken further, and the Programming Sub-Committee will meet again on 23 April—[Interruption.] The Clerk, thank heavens, reminds me that selection of amendments is a matter for the Chairman and not for the Committee. I have stated clearly my readiness and willingness to meet on the 23rd—to come back early, in fact—to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's anxieties are addressed.

Crispin Blunt: Mr. Cook, you have explained why new clause 6 appears where it does on the selection list. The discussion that we have had about when new clauses should be considered and the difficulty of squeezing them into the short time available goes to the heart of the discussion about the programme motion and why it is so unacceptable in principle. For Bills such as this one, to which the Opposition agree in principle, our position is to accept the principle by not voting against the Bill on Second Reading but instead voicing concerns later, during detailed scrutiny. However, if the amendments that we desire are not accepted, I understand that Her Majesty's Opposition will vote against the Bill on Third Reading. We made that clear on Second Reading.
 The discussion of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill occurred in precisely the same manner. More than 50 clauses of that substantial piece of legislation—similar in size to the International Criminal Court Bill when one takes into account the number of clauses in the Bill and the schedules—were not discussed in Committee. The Committee was left in disorder after an official protest by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). That is an example of how not to conduct programming of a serious issue that deserves proper scrutiny by the House of Commons. That is why, in principle, the conduct of programme motions is wrong. 
 I do not know whether 10 sittings will be too many, too few or about right, but the Government are stabbing a wet finger in the air. It is not good enough for them to say that the legislation is needed urgently. The Bill would not have been considered if we were having a general election on 3 May, which was the date that had been pencilled into Labour diaries for four years. As we know, the decision to postpone the election was only taken the Friday before last. The Sun was informed in time for its Saturday edition—

Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I seek your advice. As I understand it, a decision was taken and voted on in both Houses to postpone local elections. However, no decision has been taken about general election dates. Is it in order for the Opposition to refer constantly to the timing of the general election when no legislation about it has been passed?

Frank Cook: Order. The point is specious, because it has no bearing at all on the programme motion, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman is correct.

Crispin Blunt: If the hon. Member for Ilford, South believes what he said, he will believe anything, but that is probably one of the requirements of being a Government Back Bencher these days.
 The Government have not exactly demonstrated a need for speed in respect of the Bill. It was mentioned in the 1999 Queen's Speech yet, in April 2001, we had still to consider it. It would have been lost if there was to have been an election on 3 May. I am against programming resolutions in principle, but this motion, like the one on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, is self-defeating and foolish.

Gerald Howarth: The Minister of State said at the outset that the Bill is complex and highly legal, and he emphasised its importance. He is aware that it is hugely important to our armed services that it has substantial implications—
 It being half an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to paragraph (6) of the Order of the House of 9 April relating to Programming Sub-Committees. 
 Question agreed to.

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. It is obvious that we did not have sufficient time to debate the programme motion. I wanted to speak before you put the question, Mr. Cook, but I shall be grateful for your advice whether we can ask for an extension to the debate. I raised some substantive issues about Scottish legislation and the Minister appears to be prepared to answer my genuine questions; however, we lost time because of specious points of order and other interventions.

Frank Cook: I should make it very clear that the 30 minutes allowed for discussion and debate of the programming resolution is laid down in Sessional Orders. I do not have the power to extend the debate. If the points made by the hon. Lady related to parts of the Bill that we have yet to debate they could have been the subject of amendments, which were not tabled. I identified one specious point of order, but others were raised that we could well have done without. We should now proceed with the line-by-line examination of the Bill.

John Battle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. We have had our debate on the programme motion and although I am disappointed that the Opposition did not allow me time to reply, it is more important to discuss the Bill than to discuss whether we should discuss the Bill. However, clause 80, which I hope we shall reach, deals with the issue of bringing together the Bill and the Scottish Bill. If we reach that clause, we shall have that debate. I hope that that lays to rest the worst fears of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).

Frank Cook: I thank the Minister for his clarification of matters relating to the point of order.

Cheryl Gillan: On a different point of order, Mr. Cook. On a previous occasion, during Committee stage of the International Development Bill, the Chairman was unfortunately unable to attend a sitting; an emergency Chairman was found, but time scrutinising the Bill was lost. There were two Chairmen of that Committee but you, Mr. Cook, have a long standing record as the sole Chairman of this Committee. As time was lost for scrutiny of the International Development Bill through no fault of members of the Committee, I wish to know whether arrangements have been made to ensure that there is always a Chairman standing by, so that we do not lose any time scrutinising the Bill.

Frank Cook: I am somewhat surprised that a Member of such experience as the hon. Lady should make such a trivial point. The simple truth is that the second Chairman on any Committee is not standing by; there are provisions within the rules for a senior Member of the House to be delegated at short notice, should that be necessary. However, I have no intention of becoming known as the late Mr. Cook, and I have no intention of dying without giving notice.

Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I am not sure whether it is within your gift to say that you have no intention of dying without notice. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham made the perfectly reasonable point that if our debates are to be constrained by the programme motion, we should not lose time because an act of God prevented your chairing the Committee.

Frank Cook: I do hope that the hon. Gentleman is not challenging my knowledge of the Standing Orders of the House. They make provision for a senior Member of the House—perhaps even one as senior as the hon. Gentleman—to take the Chair should it become necessary in an emergency. Is that clear?

Gerald Howarth: I am most grateful, Mr. Cook. It is clear.

Frank Cook: Then let us proceed. I remind the Committee that there is financial resolution in connection with the Bill; copies are available in the Room. I remind Members also that adequate notice should be given of amendments and that, as a general rule, I do not intend to call starred amendments. Clause 1 The ICC and the ICC Statute

Clause 1 - The ICC and the ICC Statute

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 8, after second `Statute', insert
`, as corrected by the following proces-verbaux of rectification issued by the Secretary General of the United Nations as depositary of the ICC Statute after communicating the proposed corrections of all interested States—
(a) the proces-verbaux of 10th November 1998 and 12th July 1999 correcting the texts of that Statute in Arabic, Chinese, English, French and Spanish;
(b) the proces-verbaux of 30th November 1999 and 8th May 2000 correcting the texts of that Statute in French and Spanish;
(c) the proces-verbaux of 17th January 2001 correcting the texts of that Statute in French, Russian and Spanish, and;
(d) the proces-verbaux of 17th January 2001 correcting the text of that Statute in French, Russian and Spanish, and
(e) further such proces-verbaux as may have been or may be issued by the Secretary General of the United Nations, except where Her Majesty's Government upon resolution of either House of Parliament conveys to the Secretary General that the United Kingdom dissents from one or more specific corrections contained in one or more specific such further proces-verbaux.'.
 I thank you, Mr. Cook, for your ruling. It was important to clarify some of the issues surrounding our scrutiny of the Bill. 
 I move this probing amendment to elicit some guidelines and words of wisdom from the Minister. As there is no time limit to our debates on the clause, I hope that he will have the chance to respond. The amendment is slightly imperfect; it has lost something in translation. Paragraph (a) should include ``Russian''; and paragraph (d) should not have the date ``17th January 2001'' but should state: 
``the proces-verbaux of 19th July 2000 correcting the text of that Statute in Russian''.
 I apologise for that imperfection, but as it is a probing amendment I hope that it will not affect the Minister's response. 
 The amendment will allow us to discover what procedures are available to the Government to incorporate future corrections to the texts in legislation. I shall stand corrected on the details, but I believe that since its adoption on 17 July 1998, corrections have been made to the Rome statute on six occasions. That is hardly surprising, as the document is exceedingly complex. That complexity, which is the culmination of many years' work, is, per se, an invitation for mistakes to happen. A document of such length, that is subject to such vast international negotiation, will doubtless include mistakes. It is being pored over by international lawyers, Governments and non-governmental organisations, but errors are still being found. At the start of our scrutiny of the Bill, it is natural to try to elicit from the Minister some idea of the processes available to the Government when corrections need to be made. 
 I have been surprised by the number of changes to the text, notwithstanding what I have said. The proces-verbaux of 10 November 1998 contained no fewer than 49 changes, which is rather a large number. Although many of them are small—a comma, a word or a capital letter here and there—others go to the heart of the treaty and require some explanation, or at least need the Committee to understand what scrutiny has been given to them. 
 In some cases, the process-verbaux add something. I am looking specifically at article 124, which is an especially sensitive part of the treaty, as it is the opt-out article. When France was considering how it would approach the treaty, it sought a different solution to its problems, as it perceived things, and secured the inclusion of an opt-out—article 124, known in the statute as the transitional provision. France used article 124 to make a declaration that when it becomes party to the statute it will not accept the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the crimes listed in article 8 when they are allegedly committed by its nationals or on its territory. That provision will last for seven years, unless France withdraws the declaration sooner. 
 The provisions of article 124 are to be reviewed at the first review conference, which will be about seven years after the statute comes into force. France has made a declaration under article 124 which, together with its other interpretive declarations, is its way of seeking protection from those acting in bad faith. However, if we examine the proces-verbaux, we find that there is an alteration to that sensitive provision. The original text of article 124 read: 
 ``Notwithstanding article 12, paragraph 1, a State on becoming party to this Statute, may declare that, for a period of seven years after the entry into force of this Statute for the State concerned, it does not accept the jurisdiction of the Court''. 
Now, following the correction in the proces of 10 November 1998, it reads: 
 ``Notwithstanding article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2'', 
and so on. So the alteration goes back to article 12. Where the original text included only the precondition to the exercise of jurisdiction that was found in paragraph 1 of article 12, namely that 
 ``A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5'', 
the correction has added sub-paragraph 2: 
 ``In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3''. 
Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) follow. These corrections may not be merely to a comma, full stop or capital letter. They can substantially alter part of the treaty, or so it would appear. I hope that the Minister will address that point. 
 The problems do not stop there, as at some stage additions have been made of things that must have been felt to have been omitted. There can also be removals from the statute, as the proces-verbaux of 12 July 1999 show. They made 23 changes to the text. Many of them were minor, such as removals of punctuation. However, one change in the list refers to paragraph 5 of article 99. The original text states: 
 ``Provisions allowing a person heard or examined by the Court under article 72 to invoke restrictions designed to prevent disclosure of confidential information connected with national defence or security shall also apply to the execution of requests for assistance under this article.'' 
But ``defence'' is removed in a correction. 
 The word was obviously significant, so we must consider the implications of its removal. It is not the removal of a comma or a full stop, but a change in the meaning of that part of the article. The Minister must tell us what the implications might be for the interpretation of the statute following the word's removal, because ``national security'' is not the same as ``national defence or security''. What is his interpretation of the original wording? Why was ``defence'' removed? Why did we accept its removal? If we objected, what process was used to do so? The subject returns me to the fundamental reason why we tabled the amendment as a probing amendment. We could have put it to other uses, but we want a response on those substantive points. 
 We have been told that the statute cannot be altered—that it is almost set in concrete. Notwithstanding that, there is a process whereby changes that are not purely cosmetic are made to the statute. What notification does the Minister receive of them? What notification do the states that have ratified the treaty already receive? Who initiates the corrections? What procedures are used if there are any objections to the corrections and amendments? Is the Minister satisfied that the legislation encompasses any corrections made in the proces-verbaux detailed in the amendment, or any future ones that might be incorporated in the treaty? 
 Will the Minister also tell us what discussions he or his Department have had with Hans Corell, the Under-Secretary-General of and legal counsel to the United Nations who signed the proces? Were those discussions before, during or after the event? Can the UN issue corrections that we have to accept willy-nilly, come what may, as a fait accompli? 
 It has been continually inferred, even if it has not been spelt out, that the statute cannot be amended. Therefore, I need assurances from the Minister about the parameters within which we operate. The helpful brief prepared to the usual high standard by the Library gives the impression that the Government are, if not rushing, trying to use the passage of the Bill in an unduly political way, enabling them to say, ``We have done this good thing.'' We should have been happier if they had said: ``This is a good thing that we can all do together, but let us consider things properly.'' 
 The Library brief mentions that the Government have pointed out 
``that the Statute is not currently open to amendment.'' 
It adds: 
 ``Some amendments to the Bill''— 
in another place— 
``called for ratification to be made conditional upon changes to the Statute. These were resisted on the grounds that to accept them would place the Government in an impossible situation. However, it remains open to the Government to ratify and then to introduce amendments at the Review Conference which will take place seven years after entry into force, or, of course, to delay ratification until after the Review Conference.'' 
Did the Minister consider delaying ratification until after the conference? I know that he has said that he wants to be in the first 60, but the delay need not prevent that. I have only his word as to the rapidity with which other countries are ratifying the treaty; there seems to be no evidence that they are tearing ahead to do so. I do not know the latest number, because the relevant website was not available this morning, but I think that about 29 or 30 countries have done so. 
 In the past, the United Kingdom has not acted so precipitately on similar issues. The genocide convention was not ratified until more than 20 years after its adoption. The Geneva conventions were ratified eight years after their adoption, and there was a gap of 21 years between signing and ratifying the additional protocols to the Geneva conventions. I am sure that there were extremely good reasons in each case. More haste, less speed is the maxim, is it not? This is our one opportunity to build the institution in question, and we need to get it right. If we want to get it right, I see no reason to rush matters unduly. The Minister should satisfy us that all the i's are dotted and all the t's crossed. 
 The Government have said that to ensure that British courts can always step in before the ICC they have decided to incorporate all the ICC crimes in domestic law in identical language to that used in the Rome statute. That information is again taken from the Library brief. However, what would happen if, through the correction process mentioned in the amendment, the language in that statute were changed, while our statute was set in concrete? I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends want to speak to the amendment, but I have posed many questions to the Minister and I look forward to his response, to set my mind at rest on the question whether the administrative process behind possible continuing change to the statute is in hand.

Edward Garnier: I did not have an opportunity in the first half hour of the sitting to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cook. I trust that things will go well for us all.
 I hope for some clarification from the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham made her case in some detail. Precision is vital, because the Bill introduces the statute of Rome into our domestic legislation, and in so doing extends jurisdiction over our citizens to a foreign body—we have done that before on other occasions. The items referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e) of the amendment demonstrate that there has been some imprecision in language. Will the Minister assure the Committee that the thing that we are ratifying and signing up to is certain? 
 Our amendment may not be perfectly drafted; that is often the way with Opposition amendments—we have to do the best that we can with what we have got. However, it is important that our citizens, who may or may not become entangled in ICC proceedings, should have some precise understanding of what it is that we are giving away or not giving away. The point is simple, but I hope that the Minister can explain to my hon. Friend and me the nature of the beast that, through the Bill, we will soon get to know.

John Battle: The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham was gracious enough, in introducing her probing amendment, to acknowledge that the amendment was imperfect—I think that she said that something had been lost in the translation. Tiny errors creep in, and that demonstrates the difficulty of building an international institution round an international statute.
 It is important that we do not lose sight of the purpose of the Bill. The Rome statute, which was designed to set up the International Criminal Court, is an international agreement resulting from protracted negotiations that took place over years. We have tried to build an institution that aligns our languages and laws. That is not easy, and it is in the nature of international agreements that we cannot get from them everything that we want. We are not renegotiating the Rome statute—we are deciding to join it and ensuring that it is in line with our law. 
 This is a probing amendment that raises serious questions. It is standard practice for all treaties, once adopted, to be corrected to remove typing, spelling or translation errors. As the hon. Lady mentioned, that is done by means of the proces-verbaux, which are agreed by all the states involved. That verbal process enables them to agree on such minor changes. It is open to the UK or any other state to object to any proposed corrections. Once that process is agreed, the treaty is formally corrected. 
 Even when our Parliament passes domestic legislation related to international treaties, it is not usual practice to list all the minor changes, corrections and typing errors that those treaties have undergone. It is more important to ensure that the corrected treaty is right and that we agree with it. Otherwise, we would have to amend that domestic legislation every time a spelling error or a typo was found in an Arabic version of the treaty, and that would be absolutely ridiculous. The Rome statute of the ICC is no different from every previous treaty. The Rome statute referred to in clause 1 is the official version, as corrected.

Cheryl Gillan: I was able to obtain a copy of the Rome statute only as of December 1999. Will the Minister tell me whether any corrections have been made since then and, if so, whether they have been incorporated? Also, what happens if objections raised by the UK are not taken into consideration during the process?

John Battle: The hon. Lady raises serious questions and I will do my best to reply. The answer is yes; corrections have been made since the statute. There were errors that needed correction, not least because of the pace of the process. On the last day of the Rome conference, dramatic progress was made in piecing together different parts of the text and errors crept in. That is why there were the many corrections to which the hon. Lady referred.
 We must not forget what the treaty will do. It will build a brand new institution that pulls together a range of legal and language traditions. However, all corrections are made with the consent of the participants at Rome. I can give a practical example; the hon. Lady referred to the removal of ``defence'' from paragraph 5 of article 99. We did not object to that change because we believe that it reflects the understanding reached at Rome. Such corrections were brought to the attention of all states, which, in answer to her question, can object to them. In that case and others, they did not. We in the UK are in close contact with UN legal counsel and, indeed, suggested some corrections to improve the language and text. However, she should understand that we are talking not of substantial legal changes but textual errors that need to be typed straight. 
 It is not the intention of the Committee or of Parliament for the Bill surreptitiously to introduce new crimes to British legislation. That is not its purpose, and I assure the Committee that the Bill already guarantees that it cannot be used as a vehicle to bring in new legislation by the back door. As the Committee will see, clause 1(1) defines an International Criminal Court crime as one 
``over which the ICC has jurisdiction'' 
by its statute. The term statute is defined as the ICC statute, 
``done at Rome on 17th July 1998''. 
In other words, the crimes covered by the Bill are only those that appeared in the statute adopted in 1998. They do not include future crimes that could be introduced into the ICC's jurisdiction by amendment of the statute.

Gerald Howarth: The Bill incorporates a substantial chunk of the statute into United Kingdom law. Will the Minister accept that there will be questions of interpretation of some of the language that has been used? What we, as a country, would see as a reasonable act of self-defence, defence of our interests or of an ally or friend, might be seen by others as aggression or a wanton act of criminality.

John Battle: The hon. Gentleman is right. There will be questions of interpretation because that is the purpose of the legal system. However, we must get the legislation right. I emphasise to Opposition Members that there is no intention to sneak in new crimes with the Bill, and that the statute cannot be revised for at least seven years after the ICC is set up. At that point, there could be negotiations for amendment, which could include new crimes, but any amendment to the statute would not affect UK legislation. If we agreed with revisions to the statute, in particular to crimes, and wanted to introduce them into UK law, we would have to introduce primary legislation to amend the Bill. That safeguard is therefore built in. No new crimes could be created under the Bill without the issues coming back to Parliament. I hope that the hon. Lady is clear about that.

Cheryl Gillan: As a point of information, is that the same process that would be entered into for Scottish legislation? What would happen if there were a difference of opinion between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments?

John Battle: The hon. Lady made it clear in her opening remarks that we are talking about corrections, not amendments. We are not amending the statute. We are not amending legislation. We are simply talking about typographical errors. For example, something that is written in Arabic might not be quite the same when it is written in English. The English language does not have a word for everything on a par with every other language. We must therefore negotiate the wording and the language to get the text straight. That is what the amendment relates to, and that could not affect our primary legislation.
 The hon. Lady mentioned the review conference. The statute will come up for review in seven years after the ICC is set up. In other words, seven years after the 60 states have ratified. At that stage, amendments can be proposed by the state parties. That is a long way down the line. That is precisely why we should be within the first 60 to get there so that we can shape the statute. However, we are not talking about amendments at this stage. We are merely talking about getting the wording right. 
 I take the hon. Lady's point. As she and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, it is difficult in opposition to get amendments right. I served 10 years in opposition, when we had to devise and table amendments. Even with the advice of learned counsel, it is possible to get them wrong. Even with the advice of the highest learned counsel in the land, one can still get the wording wrong. We are talking about corrections at this stage. The hon. Lady found that the wording of the amendment was not quite right, but we have still been prepared to discuss it. The glitches can be eased out to ensure that the substance of the debate is right and that we know exactly what the clear intention is. Amendments are not in question; it is simply a matter of corrections and tidying up the language. Amendments are much later down the line. I do not feel that this amendment is necessary.

Cheryl Gillan: As the Minister sat down, I was trying to intervene on him to ask him to clarify a couple of the points which I raised with him which pertain to the two corrections that I have spelled out. He mentioned one to article 99 but he did not mention the one to article 124. I would be willing to give way if could tell us why paragraph 2 was included. That was not a minor alteration. Has he considered the implications? Was that one of the amendments that was suggested during his dialogue with legal counsel?

John Battle: I personally did not discuss that with UN legal counsel, but our officials did. Again, there was an error in article 124, which was acknowledged by the French and so the amendment makes no substantial difference. Effectively these are minor corrections of language, grammar and typography, and nothing more.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that our dialogue on the amendment will set other people's minds at rest. It may be a minor correction to the Minister, but someone who is sitting in the dock in The Hague facing substantial penalties for serious crimes may not appreciate the niceties of punctuation, omitting words and paragraphs and differences in translations across several languages. The Minister, in his characteristically generous spirit, has put some useful points on the record, which may help us with the interpretation of the legislation, as it will undoubtedly come into statute law in the United Kingdom.
 I should be grateful if the Minister would consider ensuring that corrections to the Rome statute suggested by the UK Government to the UN are always placed on the record in the Library and notified to the House of Commons, so that we know when the Government suggest corrections and what they are. As this is a transparent process and a matter of great international import, I hope that the Minister will also ensure that full details of all the corrections that have been made so far and the record of any discussions and negotiations that have taken place between officials are made available in the Library and the House of Commons notified. He acknowledged that such discussions are undertaken not by Ministers but by officials, who do a first-class job, as we all know. 
 We are talking about an international treaty of a substantial nature, which has given birth to a Bill and a statute that will change the face of UK law. It is, therefore, extremely important that changes made to the fundamental document should be part of a transparent process and placed on the record in the House of Commons.

Edward Garnier: Like me, my hon. Friend has been dealing with the Rome statute as published in December 1999 by the Stationery Office. Only minor changes may have been made since that date, but it would be extremely helpful to all hon. Members if an updated print of the statute were placed in the Vote Office. I am sure that that would not be very difficult.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful for that intervention, because I was about to ask the Minister to consider what process is undertaken in the House of Commons to ensure that all the documents that we have are up to date. There is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip, and there may be a publication in addition to the one that the Vote Office gave me.

John Battle: As far as I am aware, the series of corrections to which the hon. Lady referred were made up to the point at which the Rome statute was agreed. As I understand it, there have been no corrections to the ICC statute as published in the Command Paper in December 1999, to which the hon. and learned Member for Harborough referred. There have been no corrections to the English text of the statute since July 1999. We are not aware of any corrections that remain to be made, but we could without any difficulty make available in the Library as transparent and helpful a summary as possible of what corrections were made initially and point that the process has reached.
 I do not want to leave the impression that there is an on-going correction process, because that is not the case. Corrections have been made, the translations have settled down and the problems with commas, wording and titles have been ironed out. We can now move forward in the confidence that we have substantial material to discuss and on which we can agree.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful for that intervention. I hope that what the Minister says is absolutely accurate, but I will take his word for it. [Interruption] He hopes that it is absolutely accurate too. I will not be so curmudgeonly as to try to prove him wrong, because it is the spirit of the amendment that is important, and it was tabled to enable us to seek clarification and obtain guidelines. We have had a satisfactory debate, and I am grateful for the Minister's full reply. He may think of something else that might aid hon. Members to understand the continuous process of change that is taking place. I am sure that he will now have noted that the House of Commons and its Members require that process to be transparent. As I said that this was a probing amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 1, line 9, leave out—
`(other than the crime of aggression)'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 37, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—
`other than crimes arising out of amendments to Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the ICC Statute'.

Crispin Blunt: The amendments are extremely important and relate to the substance of our discussion, not only in terms of the application of the key articles of the Rome statute to the British population, but to the relationship between the Executive and Parliament. I hope that Government Members who are not part of the Executive will try to pay attention to my arguments, which deal with that relationship.
 I am intrigued by the exception that was made for the crime of aggression in the definition of ICC crime. If we are content to allow ourselves to be subject to the provisions of the Rome statute, I do not understand why we would make an exception in the Bill for the crime of aggression. The explanatory notes purport to give an explanation. 
 My initial thought in tabling amendment No. 36 was to test the internationalist views and temper of the Government by removing the exception 
``other than the crime of aggression'' 
to make the United Kingdom subject to the rulings of the ICC on aggression, as it is on war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The Government's explanation for the exception in clause 1 is that 
 ``Agreement has yet to be reached'' 
—on the crime of aggression— 
``and would in any case require an amendment of the ICC Statute. The earliest such an amendment could be adopted is seven years after the entry into force of the Statute (see Articles 121 and 123). Any amendment to the crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, if accepted by the UK, would need to be given effect by amendment to this legislation.'' 
If amendments Nos. 36 and 37 are taken together, they would put in the Bill the Government's reservations about the case of aggression in exactly the same terms as any change to the key articles of the statute, which are 5, 6, 7 and 8. My amendments mirror the reservations—or, in effect, the protection—in the position that the United Kingdom as a state party negotiated in article 121 of the treaty. Article 121.5, states: 
 ``Any amendment to articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this Statute shall enter into force for those States Parties which have accepted the amendment one year after the deposit of their instruments of ratification or acceptance. In respect of a State Party which has not accepted the amendment, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a crime covered by the amendment when committed by that State Party's nationals or on its territory.'' 
That purports to give the protection to the United Kingdom that the Government desire if an amendment were negotiated. 
 The key element is that we do not have control over which amendments can be negotiated, because they do not have to be negotiated by unanimity. The assembly of states parties will decide whether a proposal that it receives for an amendment to the key sections of the statute should be discussed by a majority, and the adoption of such an amendment will require a two thirds majority of the states parties. The treaty goes on to state: 
 ``Except as provided in paragraph 5, an amendment shall enter into force for all States Parties one year after instruments of ratification or acceptance have been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations by seven-eighths of them.'' 
That takes us to why the United Kingdom needs protection. It appears to be protected under the statute, but that makes reference only to the Government, not to Parliament. Parliament should be given the same protection in the clause that the Government have seen fit to give in the case of aggression. The meaning of ``aggression'' will have to be negotiated because it was not decided in time to be included in the Rome statute. Reaching international agreement on that is an immensely difficult task, but Parliament should have the same protection in negotiating the statute as the Executive have given themselves in article 121.5. 
 That is important because the Government will find themselves under many pressures when negotiating amendments. They will not want to be seen to be outwith the general mood in the international community. That is why we are facing having the statute negotiated the way that it is. It can properly be argued that the Government are excessively sensitive to public opinion not only in the United Kingdom but in the global village, and that is why we are the only permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations likely to ratify the treaty without a reservation. The French will enter a reservation but of the three largest members of the Security Council, China has not even signed the statute and the United States has made it clear that it will not ratify it; I do not know the attitude of the Russians, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. The United Kingdom, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has an exposed position.

Mike Gapes: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the policy of our Government and Parliament should be determined by a lowest common denominator approach and that we should not care about international obligations or improving situations? Perhaps he thinks that we should have the same human rights policy as the Chinese Government?

Crispin Blunt: I am not suggesting anything of the kind. I am saying that I expect the Government to come to a balance of judgment on the issues. The United Kingdom, with a population of 60 million and with a long record of interventions round the world, has to use a quite different set of judgments from those of the Governments of San Marino, Dominica, the Marshall Islands, Belize, Luxembourg or Fiji in deciding whether to be bound by the details of the Rome statute. All those countries have populations of fewer than 1 million people—the Marshall Islands has 51,000, Dominica has 71,000, and San Marino 27,000—and they have all ratified the statute. They will have the same influence in electing judges, by secret ballot, who will interpret the statute—which we will discuss later—and will be part of the seven-eighths of countries that are in a position to ensure that amendments to the statute end up in the statute. At that point the UK Government will have to decide whether, under article 121.5, they will accept such amendments.

John Battle: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Canada, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain and other countries. Is the hon. Gentleman really going back to the old argument of size and ``might is right''?

Crispin Blunt: This is a unique statute. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said on Second Reading that it was one of the most important measures he had seen in his 35 years in the House of Commons. We should not underestimate its importance, and the importance of the institution it sets up. It is all very well for the Minister to say that there is no intention of introducing legislation by the back door, and that that is not the purpose of the Bill, but the amendments to clause 1 would protect the position of Parliament, decades ahead.
 In 1951 when the Government negotiated the European convention on human rights, we did not know that 50 years later it would change how we choose to administer discipline in our armed forces. The changes might, or might not, be right on their merits, but that is a different argument. The issue is whether it is a vital interest of the United Kingdom to be able to organise her armed forces as she sees fit. No one who negotiated the convention in 1951 identified that point. The Minister talks about seven years being some time down the road, but when we consider the Bill, we must look further ahead than seven years, which is but a blip in diplomatic terms. In that time, the proposal will not even be up and running; no form of jurisprudence will have been established and there will be no record on which to make a judgment. How it works, and its consequences, will become clear only decades down the track. That is why it is important for the Bill to include the same safeguards for Parliament that the Government have negotiated for themselves. That would be the effect of the amendment. 
 Members of the Committee should bear in mind the size of the countries involved. The hon. Member for Ilford, North—

Mike Gapes: It is Ilford, South.

Crispin Blunt: Ilford, South is a rather better prospect than Ilford, North for the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that if we are one of the 60 nations that ratify the treaty, the total population of the smallest 30 nations will be 12.9 million and of the largest 30 nations, 2 billion. Thus nations representing half of 1 per cent. of the population of the major nations of the world will be those whose votes decide the appointment of judges, to which we shall return later.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the disparity in voting. The Minr paid far more attention to the fact that France, Spain, Italy and Germany signed the treaty than to the fact that the key player in the defence of freedom and in keeping the world a safer place, the United States of America, sees the dangers in having the court, and has not signed the treaty. Is not that much more important to take into account? This country is much more likely to be affected than the San Marinos of the world.

Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend is right. [Interruption.] I understand what the Minister is going to say and he will correct me if I am wrong: the United States has signed the treaty, but it is plain that it will not ratify it.

John Battle: It is important to understand the difference between signing and ratifying; a substantial number of states—139—have signed the treaty, including the United States. We should not pre-empt whether they will ratify it in future.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.